MR. PAULOSE Vs. THE VAIKOM MUNICIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has approached this Court challenging the judgment dated 3.7.2015 in WP(C) No.31561 of 2014. In fact the said case has been decided along with a batch of writ petitions. According to the appellant, his case stands on a different set of facts in relation to the cases considered in the said batch.

(2.) The appellant submits that he is in possession of six cents of land in Sy. No.157/5E2 in Naduvila Village. According to him, as per the report submitted by the Agricultural Officer as Ext.P4, the property is not treated as paddy land or wetland, hence the Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as '2008 Act') has no application. Reference is also made to Ext.P6, which indicates a different survey number. It is submitted that so far as land has been reclaimed long back, there is no reason why the application for building permit should not be considered by the respondent Municipality. The writ petition was therefore filed for a direction to the Municipality to grant building permit to the petitioner based on Ext.P4 and P6 reports.

(3.) Learned Single Judge having considered the matter along with a batch of cases, issued certain guidelines, which reads as under :